Talk:FAN-WUT War
LunarWars Alliances being listed The links section includes proof of the involvement of LW groups, even if only as a joke. It is not vandalism to make mention of that in the article - CirrusOfMalla 02:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Assumptions I'm not trying to pitch a fit, but the last sentence of the "Overlord" section needs a citation or removal cause I think it is assuming things just a little too much. Overall this is a good article, I just want to make sure that sense there is a hard line between the 2 sides, that it doesn't turn into "tit-for-tat" editing. :It clearly says that point was speculated, not factual. If folks want a citation I'm sure we can dig up a thread somewhere from that week where someone speculates about it, but I'm not sure what that would serve. As long as it's presented as speculation not fact I don't think there's a problem. -CirrusOfMalla 14:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC) :: Though I understand your point that the mention of speculation does not entail fact, I feel that the sentence does boarder on editorializing by painting a picture of some preconceived conspiracy for FAN to begin the war when there is no evidence to support it. Without the thread that you mentioned to show that this issue was addressed in the wider community, I feel that it is putting words into the mouths of the players. If there was such a thread that is fine and I feel that would give credence to the statement, but if there was none, I feel that this may seem as if the statement is trying to beg such an assumption. That's the only thing I have a problem with. I would be equally opposed to someone putting in a line to say "many players feel this war is an expression of NPO's hegemonic attempts at dominance," and while that may clearly be a sentiment of some players, I don't feel that it helps explain these events without bias. JTBeowulf 21:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC) :::I believe there is precedent to say that based on the widespread accusation in the cyberverse at-large that FAN couldn't possibly have not known about NPO's protectorate treaty with NoV. This post is an example, among many. If one assumes that FAN did know, as many people on the boards clearly did, then the implication that it was a test of NPO's resolve is unmistakable. If FAN knew about the protectorate status, why else would they attack? Whether FAN knew about the treaty or not we cannot answer, but there was massive speculation on the boards at the time that FAN must have known, and I think that is an important part of the history of the conflict, particularly in the context of FAN's thinning relations with Initiative. -CirrusOfMalla 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC) :::: You could put that link as a source to the speculation, but I could not decipher how that post made a direct reference to FAN's having an ultimate goal of initiating a conflict with NPO. FAN government and membership publicly announced that it had no knowledge of the agreement to the protectorate status and I think the statement is still trying to extrapolate a conclusion based on a supposed "many" posts that speak for the "many in the cyberverse" that still speculate the motives of someone else. I hold that the statement is still biased in giving more credence to a conspiracy from FAN to fight NPO based on said "speculation," and begs the question of what FAN's true motives were. I think removing the line makes the article less biased without doing any harm to an accurate account of the events. JTBeowulf 20:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC) You guys are missing the point completely. NoV was not a protectorate of NPO. Please cite sources if you wish to say it was. Make sure the sources are unedited and predate the invasion and publicly available. The FACT is that on the NoV forum under the Treaties section, no NPO protectorate was listed. Same for the NPO forum. Nothing listed on the Cn forum either. You keep stating that the protectorate was a fact but if it did exist, it was not a public treaty. Please dont just jump in ZOMG! please find the unedited sources stating an official protectorate of NPO for NoV. FAN did not know there was a protectorate, thats why FAN stopped the instant Moo said there was. As a military leader in FAN I was present when the Moo post was made and in the military discussion that followed immediately afterward. I KNOW that it was not a test of NPO's resolve and that when Moo said it was a protectorate we stopped in our tracks because we were allies of NPO. If you are going to try to refute the above, please, please include your sources! DelSolid 02:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Yo. http://z15.invisionfree.com/Cyber_Nations/index.php?showtopic=66673&view=findpost&p=7542896 72.12.163.230 07:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Point of View Issues Where are the sources regarding the amount of nuclear weapons launched? Also, the last section of the article appears to be quite bias in favor of FAN's point of view, as it seems quite anti-NPO and anti-Initiative. It doesn't mention much of the Initiative and its allies' perspectives or contributions to the war and dismisses them as appearing to be losing. Wyfind 07:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC) Though I'm not entirely sure if it is favorable of FAN as some of the statistics may be true, I do feel that these additions without citations should be edited. These numbers like "1600 nukes" and "200 NPO members" need to come from somewhere if they are going to stay up. Anyone could come in and say "1,000,000 NPO are ZI!!!1 OMGLOLZ!" but if there isn't a citation it should be left out until the data can be sourced. JTBeowulf 00:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC) GOONS surrender = hilarious It has to be said. - CirrusOfMalla 17:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Ongoing Conflict I changed around some of the titles in the War sections to reflect that this is still an unresolved conflict. the section titled "End of War," is invalid as there are still official hostilities and actual combat going on. Along with the titles, I also added some information concerning the nuke usage and its details. JTBeowulf 17:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC) TPF SURRENDERED a while ago so stop trying to say this war is "raging." Go check the war-slots, they're all empty. JTBeowulf 13:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Peace I'm assuming that with the peace between NPO and FAN, most alliances that were fighting were represented by NPO or are just going to pull out. I'm not the most knowledgable wiki person so how do you add the time template to comments? - shadowarmy75 EoTRS The wars against EoTRS really don't belong in this article. The NPO didn't engage them for reasons at all related to FAN. The Order attacked EoTRS because they had declared war on our allies in the ~ coalition and assistance was requested.Bakunin's Dream 06:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)